Hi, On 13 October 2011 17:53, Keith Packard <kei...@keithp.com> wrote: > On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 14:49:42 +0100, Simon Farnsworth > <simon.farnswo...@onelan.co.uk> wrote: >> A question - what is it about preforking a backtrace handler that you think >> will put people off using it? > > It's an ugly hack to work around a bug in glibc. A non-prefork version > wouldn't consume any resources until the server actually crashes. > > If we knew that systems which did not have syscall(2) also had a working > fork(2), then we could simply use syscall(SYS_fork) where available and > expect that to work around any potential glibc bugs.
Or, just accept that once you've not only segfaulted but are attempting to carry on and deal with the crash post-mortem, with the server in god-knows-what state, it's always going to be best-effort and you might not always be able to do everything you'd ever wanted. *shrug* Cheers, Daniel _______________________________________________ xorg-devel@lists.x.org: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
